Tribunal Dismisses Obi’s Petition against Tinubu

The presidential election tribunal has dismissed the petition filed by Mr Peter Obi of the Labour Party against the election of President Bola Tinubu.

Justice Haruna Tsammani, who led the five-member panel of the Presidential Election Petition Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it lacked merit, adding that the petitioners failed to prove allegations made against the election.

Obi and his party had in their joint petition filed in March this year claimed that Tinubu did not win majority of votes cast in the February 25 presidential election.

In addition they had alleged that the electoral umpire did not comply with the laws in the conduct as well as declaration of Tinubu as winner of the presidential poll.

Besides, Obi and LP had claimed Tinubu ought not to be on the ballot because of alleged unlawful nomination of his Vice President, alleged forfeiture order against him by a US court in the 1990s.

Petitioners also faulted INEC’s declaration of Tinubu as winner having not scored 25% of the lawful votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

However, delivering judgment in the petition on Wednesday, Justice Tsammani held that the petitioners failed to prove allegations of irregularities, non-compliance as well as corrupt practices made in the election.

On the issue of Tinubu’s inability to score 25% in the FCT, the tribunal described as “fallacious” and “ridiculous” submission of the petitioners that INEC was wrong for declaring Tinubu winner having not scored 25% in the FCT.

The tribunal which distinguished interpretation of statute from the Constitution, pointed out that a preamble of the 1999 Constitution showed that all citizens are equal, where no one is superior or inferior to another even by vote.

Tsammani pointed out that the petitioners went on a futile and narrow interpretation of Section 134 of the Constitution, when they assume that Abuja voters have more value to the extent of vetoing votes of other voters in other states.

Explaining the word “and” as used in Section 134, the tribunal held that the FCT shall be seen “as if it were one of the states of the federation”, adding that the FCT shall be taken into calculation of the two-thirds of the states of the federation as if it were the 37 state.

Citing Section 299 of the Constitution, the tribunal held that, “FCT is to be treated like any other state ” and it is not superior or inferior to other states, adding that if the framers of the constitution had something different they would have gone ahead to make it a requirement.

“Having resolved all three issues in favour of the respondents, the case of the petitioners is unmeritorious”, Tsammani held.

(ThisDay)